RPGs back in the day were built on a grid, both because it was familiar (via table-top games like D&D) and because computers and software wouldn’t be able to handle proper 1st person free movement for another 10 years or so. Early RPGs like The Bard’s Tale not only used a grid, but the fact that it was a grid was often part of the puzzle of the game. You knew there were hidden areas on the map because it was a grid and your careful mapping (on graph paper, no less! No automappers yet) shows there’s a spot you can’t see how to get to. That’s an aspect we wanted to bring forward into this new Bard’s Tale game, so supporting a grid-based movement mode has always been a high priority.

Cool story Greg Underwood, senior programmer bro, but no one played any games directly from the original diskettes. The first thing to do after buying a game was to make a copy for actually playing and put the originals on the shelf, where they're safe.
Next time, try to link a IIGS screenshot instead of a DOS one, to make it more believable.
I'm glad that you got money to make games, but how about the original "technical-wizard" who thwarted you, aka Burger Heineman got money as well, so we could play BT1-3 remastered? That's what i want to play, what i want to "revisit", instead of BT2004 remastered, Mages Tale and other ripoffs.

Spamming the backers about giving BT2004 to a new audience on the PS4 is the last thing you should be doing, to be honest, even if your other great news is that there is still no backer portal, because the later i don't give a flying fuck about, but the former actively pisses me off.

Nice grid by the way, i bet Gizmo will soon write a few pages, with animated images, about what is good/bad about it. Cheers!

I thought this was going to be the update to reveal the new publisher for the console versions. And what was up with BT4 being listed at the Techland E3 booth? That Polish-language placeholder site is still up: http://bardstalegame.com/

The pictures kinda give the impression that the New Orleans team just went to E3 to meet with other people from Louisiana Plus a random producer on the Final Fantasy MMO.

My takeaway from the BT IV portion of the BT IV update is that inXile is trying to accommodate grid-based movement by offering limited push back to the art and design folks when they need to "move their stuff". Seems like this is a good way to miss edge cases. Also interesting to hear that procedural generation is being used to seed some level content for later rework. How many levels are we talking about - are we sure that each can't be lovingly hand-crafted by human designers? Seems like the possibility for devious puzzles and traps would be higher that way.

...i bet Gizmo will soon write a few pages, with animated images, about what is good/bad about it. Cheers!

I would like to see a short video example of traversing that untextured debug-lit map. The original concern was whether it would be grid or node based; there is a difference. Node based being more like Riven and Myst. This looks like node based stepping. This probably means that there is no relationship with the party's position on the floor, and with any floors below or above them; it possibly means that there is no guarantee of the distance traveled per step —anywhere on the map; as nodes might be of variable distances apart. If that is so, then it would seem that the grid-step feature is more decorative than functional.

My takeaway from the grid portion is that the environment is definitely going to be FAR more literal and visual, thus in my mind I'm picturing a leaning more towards Dragon Wars for the map content (grid spaces felt more literal in size/scale and content) but with more visual depiction to back it up.

I try to imagine how I might experience the room shown in the explanation; and I'm torn because while the visuals are bound to be gorgeous, my eyes show me literal stuff around me which doesn't leave much room for imagination, and so mapping handrails as walls or dead ends as perhaps just the nook below the side of a stairway, feels kind of odd... In Dragon Wars, for those maps occasionally I went back and actually attempted to literalize the map, drawing the objects, tents, buildings, trees and whatnot from an overhead view; used imagination to bring the map to life where in the game the map content was still quite abstracted.

I dunno, I suppose I'll really have to see the game in grid mode in action before casting a final judgement. I'm definitely still playing in grid mode, but the literal-vs-abstract space has always been the biggest concern of mine... We'll see!

I am expecting something closer to Myst3:Exile—but in full 3d, and sans transition fade between steps; think Grimrock, but where the center of the squares isn't really the center, or a square... rather just the next nearby location in a web of nodes... as seen in the image above.

That's not what I'm hoping for. A video example can easily clear up any misconception, if I am mistaken about it.

Pretty disappointing update after so long a wait tbh, I was hoping for some more concrete gameplay and mechanics details, perhaps some gameplay footage, though it's nice to know how the grid will work.

Good questions/points about the difference between a grid and a node based system. To clarify - we're definitely using a Node system, but we're also trying to find the right balance. The completely free-form of a Node system isn't what we want, but the iron rigidity of a Grid system is also too constraining. We took two steps to try and find that balance:

1) Most of the levels were roughed-in and initially set up on a grid by level design before art came in to decorate and bring them to life.
2) The auto-generator algorithm has a set step size it uses and it does a flood-fill algorithm to march out from the start point.

So most levels should be mostly laid out on a grid, and the node generator generates nodes on a grid. The fun comes in where the art team's decorations and tweaks to the grid-like floor plan moved an area in the level away from a rigid grid. The challenges around dealing with that merger of art and design constraints is what I was talking about in the update. The auto-generator has some features that level design can use to set things up ahead of time (like marking off sub-regions instead of trying to march a rigid grid across an entire level from a single start point), but they also go in after the generator runs and make adjustments. Adding and removing nodes, re-arranging them to shift or curve the path they follow slightly, etc.

It's all about balance. We want BT IV to feel like a modern game, but it also has to acknowledge its roots. It's been 26 years since BT III... game design and computer technology have evolved hugely since then. We want to be able to take advantage of as much of that quarter-century of evolution as we can while still remembering where the game came from. The constraints the original BT team worked under resulted in some really great things - as you pointed out, thebruce. But constraints and player expectations have changed and grown. We have to adjust what the game shows (and chooses not to show) to make a game that works in the world now.

It's been 26 years since BT III... game design and computer technology have evolved hugely since then. We want to be able to take advantage of as much of that quarter-century of evolution as we can while still remembering where the game came from.

But does that honestly make any difference? (And if so, what exactly?—specifically)

The passage of time itself I can't think of as being meaningful in this context. Tools do improve over time; (both software and hardware ).
A compass and GPS do not not work the same, but they were built to solve the same problem. GPS is like a very evolved compass, so much so that they seem entirely unrelated machines—yet they are for solving the same problem; same with a hammer and a nailgun. Sure, no one wants a 1:1 BT III clone. I'm sure most want a fun game and the most eye-popping visuals possible (in a consumer product—for the price-point), but using the name and not providing the expected features of the name is a bit like selling a product called "Improved Pipewrench", knowing that it doesn't loosen or tighten pipes.

Sadly Bethesda is heinously guilty of this with their mistreatment of the Fallout IP; turning a highly respected top-tier RPG series into an action-franken-shooter with vestigial RPG hang-ups... made wholly for a different consumer-base than the series traditionally attracted; (many of whom seem genuinely hostile to RPG mechanics in general). Point being the '4' in 'BT4' (like the '3' in FO3) is supposed to indicate an inherited similarity to the experience. IE. an Improved BT/Fallout, as opposed to a BT or Fallout themed —something else; a re-skined TES4, in the case of Fallout 3.

As an aside: Nodes aren't bad—per se, but when you are in a multi-floor dungeon, it's irritating (for several reasons) not to know where you are in relation to what's above and below you... Especially if the levels of the game are not a rigid grid of a known size. It sounds like the nodes in BT4 are mostly offset to off-center (to accommodate the decorations), rather than moving significantly variable distance & direction each step. So long as a pit (every pit) lines up with the hole in the ceiling below, and that maps can overlay with the nodes more or less in the same dozen feet or so, I don't see any problem using them. I would hope that any diagonal nodes on your maps at least loosely align with a node above and below the current floor. Put another way: If there were identical rooms above & below, and nine steps between North & South staircases on the level below, then there should be nine steps between them on the level above—though not necessarily traversable steps if the rooms were not both identical.

*So the big question is...(if and when you are permitted to answer): ~In the abstract...do you have multi-level dungeons somewhat like Grimrock and Bard's tale 1, 2, & 3, or are the levels more akin with Myst, Riven, & Exile?

Last edited by Gizmo on September 11th, 2017, 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

You make several interesting points, Gizmo. And I think with all of them you're diving right into the heart of the eternal debate about sequels within the industry. How do you find the balance between innovation and sticking with what worked before? We've all seen sequels that we feel failed to find just the right balance ... though the list each of us has of what was a success and what was too far one way or the other will be different. Each person's take on what was the heart of a particular original game and what should carry through to sequels is different. A great example for me is Pikmin and Pikmin 2 - I think the first game was sublime and beautiful, full of puzzles laid out that you can see, tinker with, and solve. And the 2nd failed because it introduced seemingly random elements that could wreck your plans based on knowledge you couldn't have until you've played (and failed) several times. Yet, Pikmin 2 has a higher metacritic, and IGN flat out said it's better than original in every way in their review in 2004. No accounting for taste, especially among some game journalists, eh?

To your specific point about the passage of time and how that effects things - It's a good point. I see many sides of that argument. One way to interpret it is that, on the one hand, using the number 4 is a way of saying "we're going back to what BT3 was in 1991 and iterating on that". On the other hand - I can see interpreting it as "let's set aside the 2004 Bard's Tale, and make a modern successor to BT3". And I'm sure there are a zillion other ways to look at what that #4 means. All I can say is I think there are a lot of ways people enjoyed the originals, and I think this new game has a lot to offer to fans, old and new. In this one fan's opinion, it's shaping up to be an interesting and worthy successor to the originals and one I think I'll be proud to have my name attached to. But I also know I can't ever speak for all fans and you will all draw your own conclusions - and rightly so. All I can do is hope you agree with me.

Now, if you have questions about the gory technical details of the grid generating system, or my thoughts on the C++17 proposed standards that were just accepted, I'm happy to continue at length. Though I may have to clear details of the former with PR and legal - I have no idea what counts as a trade secret. Heh.

A good post.
I am engine neutral, and don't need the technical details. I am content if a sequel delivers on the name's reputation.
My own opinion of sequels, is that if one cannot make it a proper set, then it shouldn't be made.
I just want something that is recognizably Bard's Tale—even after all these years.

A good tell for that is that a Bard's Tale player shouldn't need to read the manual, because—differences aside, the concepts are very familiar.

** And hopefully Including the review board, classes with prerequisite classes, and mandatory tavern visits; neither of which were a technical limitation of the day. A big part of Bards Tale, was making one's way back to the (relative) safety of civilization.

***A minor suggestion for improvement is to take a look at the original Realms of Arkania series, and the way it handled shops and tavern interaction. In RoA the PC's could interact with the tavern patrons; for example, they could play a tune for the crowd—for tips! (Whilst their thief pilfered the pockets of the crowd). These were skills, and they had variable results. And imagine if that scene in the painting atop each BT forum thread was actually possible in game, as a choice for the bard.

And the 2nd failed because it introduced seemingly random elements that could wreck your plans based on knowledge you couldn't have until you've played (and failed) several times.

Yup, that's how old-school gaming worked. Legendary developers like Cranford, Greenberg, Woodhead, Henkel and Patzenhauer pretty much trolled the player and made first attempts fail, usually after considerable time investment. All this, without internet, yet their games were fun, and some of them still are! Of course this is unacceptable in "modern" gaming because of reasons...

"let's set aside the 2004 Bard's Tale, and make a modern successor to BT3"

Is that so? Why is this update's headline about BT2004 remastered on PS4 then? And there is also Mage's Tale... All the while, no word on the classic remasters and zero tangible information about BT4. It's been 2 years...

Agree about what? There were several "modern successors" such as M&M9, Ultima 9 and Fallout 3, which thoroughly raped these beloved classics. There are also mediocre games like WL2, which is also being more of a "modern successor" to Fallout instead of WL. Excuse me if i'm a bit skeptical, I can only hope BT4 won't be like that. Alas, with each update i'm losing more and more faith though.

Here's a thing to think about which I think would certainly help assuage any concerns.

Perhaps the perception is that the developers who are working on the game all have a 'modern' philosophy, or valued aspects of the classics that are different than many of us. And so, while everything you've said I can agree with regarding finding a difficult balance, we'd feel more confident in the retention of classic aspects we value if we knew there were developers who also valued the same things as us, the way we do. In that way "our voice", as it were, is being heard in the development process.

As an example, the team may recognize the value of grid-mapping, but if it wasn't as important to them as something other experience, then it won't have as much a 'say' in the final concept. Whereas if we knew that someone there really understood and valued the experience of hand-mapping and abstract environments, then depending on how the final state results, at least we'd trust the final result a little better; like, at worst, if that dev who's like us decided to move this direction of which I'm not a huge fan, maybe I'll give it a chance because it was good enough for them.

If we, who truly value aspects of the classics that aren't carried over, play the game now, it's quite possible we may feel something is very much missing and the dev team didn't truly take into consideration what we fans valued most (even if there were many questionnaires and interactions with community, and honest, legitimate attempts to incorporate what people love - and I do believe inXile is doing their best with this).

The weighting of valued game elements also includes the choices of the team members, who could easily (and should) value what they feel is better for the game - but because they're developers they have a leg up on decision making.

So, the least we could hope for is not only that the team listens to the community, but that we've "got someone on the inside" as it were who actually understands what we value, first hand.

That's why it's great to hear from the developers in the updates - it gives us a bit of background on where they came from, how they played, what they enjoy, where their priorities lie. As community, one developer might strike a chord and connect with us, giving a bit more confidence that "what I love" about the classics is being considered first hand in the development process.

The weighting of valued game elements also includes the choices of the team members, who could easily (and should) value what they feel is better for the game...

I don't agree here... To me that can be somewhat akin to a [film] director being given or inheriting an established (say...a science fiction) property who has never heard of it, who might not even like the genre, and doing whatever they please with it. Or like if Neill Blomkamp were to have directed 'The Bridges of Madison County'— in his signature style... because he thought it was apropos.

It is well known that Sir Alec Guinness thought that Star Wars was insipid nonsense... but should he have played his role that way? He was paid to deliver what he was asked for; (which included a percentage of Lucas' own profits from the film IRRC). Despite being bored to tears by the material, he applied his considerable talent to playing the wise old Jedi knight.

If a developer —hates RTS gameplay, that does not mean that they should re-imagine a property into something alien that they themselves prefer. (IE. Like making a the next 'Dawn of War' sequel game play like SpaceMarine). (Sadly) this is precisely what Bethesda did with their [ab]use of the Fallout IP, and their preference for TES gameplay & favoring their TES player-base as the prime consumer). FO3 is a TES clone, with a retro-50's re-skin; FO4 is worse—and it's unquestionably intentional too.

New IPs & and new series are open territory for anything, but sequels are treading explored domains from the outset; else why make it at all? For all of their (expected!) innovations, they should still hit all of the bullet points for the series, as set down by the games that preceded them. Different development teams should respect that and consider it part of the design spec.... unless it's really just a cash-grab; which excuses nothing. (I am convinced that that is what FO3 & 4 both were)
__

Also, on a curious note: Both 'Dawn of War' and Spacemarine are warhammer IP titles that are in all other ways unrelated, yet they were made by the same developer. Some developers 'get it', and don't approach sequel design like a kid with a hammer seeing everything as a nail.

Last edited by Gizmo on September 11th, 2017, 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

The weighting of valued game elements also includes the choices of the team members, who could easily (and should) value what they feel is better for the game...

I don't agree here... To me that can be somewhat akin to a [film] director being given or inheriting an established (say...a science fiction) property who has never heard of it, who might not even like the genre, and doing whatever they please with it.

Mine was a general statement. I don't want someone working on the game who doesn't like the game. Or whose opinions about the game are completely irrelevant. They have as much desire and right to see and enjoy the game as we do. I point out the bias later though in precisely the point you're also referring to - they are also a direct developer of the game, which we are not, therefore we can easily feel 'left out' if there is no 'voice' like our own with that level of input. And so we hope that there is someone on the inside who holds the same values and hopes for the game that we do. Because I don't want to be a person that says "No, because you're developer, your hopes for the game as a gamer are completely irrelevant". That's not fair, and can lead to apathetic and careless development.

It's like movie reviews. You can read reviews to the ends of the earth, but the only ones worth something are the ones by people who enjoy the same and think the same as you. Those are reviews you're more likely to trust because the resulting consensus would be more consistent with your own expectations and desires.

So, in developing a game based on one I love, I hope that there is a developer who enjoys what I enjoy, so that I can at least trust that what happens to the game is something I can accept (assuming of course said developer who thinks like me has come to accept it and/or enjoy it - then I have hope, regardless of the end product; if they end of quitting, that's not a Good Sign).

It's like movie reviews. You can read reviews to the ends of the earth, but the only ones worth something are the ones by people who enjoy the same and think the same as you. Those are reviews you're more likely to trust because the resulting consensus would be more consistent with your own expectations and desires.

So, in developing a game based on one I love, I hope that there is a developer who enjoys what I enjoy, so that I can at least trust that what happens to the game is something I can accept (assuming of course said developer who thinks like me has come to accept it and/or enjoy it - then I have hope, regardless of the end product; if they end of quitting, that's not a Good Sign).

I just don't think like that. I understand your point, and agree that a majority of people probably do think like that, but I assess on past merit and skill. I will recommend someone for a job if they are the best, even if I cannot stand them. I will listen to the reasons & observations in a review (if given), and decide based on those. Sometimes a very concise negative review will convince me to see the film. This works for games as well. I will watch reviews by people with whom I might rarely agree... because they do good job at the review; even though they might be aspersing the very things I'd enjoy.

Well obviously you can weigh the result as you wish - like a negative review, if you consider what they don't like is what you do like, then the review can have decisive value for you. I'm talking about mutual positivity here. If a person recommends the movie, then I'll likely only enjoy it if they enjoy what I do. And of course I would recommend someone for a job if they are good for the job regardless of my opinion of them personally where the opinion is irrelevant to the job.

The context is development of the game based on one I enjoy. I'm going to trust that I'll enjoy the end result if I know there's a developer in the mix who enjoys what I enjoy, and recommends the final product. It's not a guarantee, but that alone shows where the bias is in development, regardless of how much the team attempts to 'survey' what its fans want.

I DO want people working on the game who have a vested interest in the game, and therefore I'd want at least someone working on the game who enjoys what I enjoy in the game.

If none of the developers value what I like, then there's no true understanding of that desire, and it entirely depends on how much they themselves desire to incorporate their own opinions into the decisions, and that's not something we can really know for certain. If no developers like what I like, then it'll feel like no matter how often we suggest and push for something, it'll end up as just another thing to consider with very little weight in the grand scheme.

I know this AS a developer. It happens especially in creative roles. Creative development is very personal. It's hard to take someone else's subjective input if it disagrees with your own; it takes humility and a different priority. Creative developers can be very stubborn and take disagreement personally, like a slight to your professional opinion.
This is why for the game I'd be more comfortable with the outcome with developers inside who think like me and like what I like. That's why we democratically vote people into political office; they make decisions, and we hope the decisions they make that we have no direct say in will be in line with what we would decide if we were there. Essentially.

1) Most of the levels were roughed-in and initially set up on a grid by level design before art came in to decorate and bring them to life.
2) The auto-generator algorithm has a set step size it uses and it does a flood-fill algorithm to march out from the start point.

So most levels should be mostly laid out on a grid, and the node generator generates nodes on a grid. The fun comes in where the art team's decorations and tweaks to the grid-like floor plan moved an area in the level away from a rigid grid. The challenges around dealing with that merger of art and design constraints is what I was talking about in the update.

And this is where my concern is. One would think that you may need an automatic level validator to walk all paths along nodes in a level after the art team has potentially created obstacles that would be navigable via free-form movement but not via grid-based movement.

But, backing up to a higher level of discussion, are you sure it's not possible to make a nice-looking dungeon that looks like it is grid-based (perhaps because it is grid-based)? The reason I ask is because it is difficult to hand-map on a grid if the environment doesn't offer grid-like visual cues.

Now, if you have questions about the gory technical details of the grid generating system, or my thoughts on the C++17 proposed standards that were just accepted, I'm happy to continue at length. Though I may have to clear details of the former with PR and legal - I have no idea what counts as a trade secret. Heh.

I'd be happy to hear more detail on the grid generating system (or the C++17 standard, though I'm barely caught up on the C++14 standard - lambdas, yah - the language has evolved quite a bit since my Stroustrup-autographed The C++ Programming Language (Third Edition)).